Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-11
COUPON SELLING.
DECISION OF TUE SUPREME COURT IN
THE MAURY CASE.
The Special Lioense-Tsx OF isSS-'8i Pre-
nOuneed Constitutional,
&C, &C., &c.

follows:
Commonwealth Us. II. II. Aaury:
This is writ Of error to q judg
mont Of the Hastings Corrt OF the city
Of Richmond. rendered July 81, 1884,
| upon an indictment against X. l..
haury, for unlawfully selling coupons
cut from bonds of the State OF Vir-
ginia, without having first obtained the
license required by law
The defendant moved the court to
quash the indictment, upon the ground
| that the statute on which the indict-
mont was founded is repugnant 10 both
tie Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution OF Virginia. The
Hustiugs Court sustained this motion.
and the Commonwealth excepted and
obtained "A writ of error and supor-
scdc0s from one Of the judges of this
court.
The statute in question reads as fol-
/ lows:
| "No person shal soil tax-recciyoble coupons
| lcup from bonds 81 the State OF Virginia
| without srccial license, for which privi-
| lego he ehal pay one thousand dollars for
ench Office or place Of business kept for that
! purpose. In addition thereto lac shall pay 20
| The state a taX OF 20 per centum upon the face
| vnluc Of all the taX-Toceivabie coupons sold by
| him At the time Of making such sales he
| shall give % the Durchascre printed certificate
signed by him, stating the fact that no has sold
! such coupons to the purchaser. naming nm
| Tho certificate shall also contain the number
| and amount Of the said coupons, and the date
/ of the sale. Whenever such coupons are ten
| 6crcd for taxes the brokers receipt shall be
| delivered 10 the collector. The said collector
| ann frfFftl Gf
| TIE following month, when he shall collect the
! said tax Of 20 per ccntGm from the said broker.
| But any stock-broker may purchase such cou-
| pons for the purpose Of funding them In the
rev per cent bonds Of Virginia" Soc sec
| tion 60. chapter i50, Acts iSSS-'Sf, page 400
In the view taken of the question.
this section need only be subjected to
the test of the fourteenth section of the
fifth article of the Virginia Constitu-
ton, which, among other things, pro-
vides that "the General Assembly shall
notpass % any law i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts -;
and of the tenth section of the first ar
ticlc of the Federal Constitution, which
is to the same effect.
vIRGIN1A's DEBT.
Tie history of the State debt Of Vir-
ginia and Of the Legislation attempting
its settlement and of the action OF the
State and Federal courts touching that
legislation are matters of well-knOwn
judicial cognizance and need not be
repeated here. Suffice ii to say that
before the civil war the State issued
bonds to large amount, the interest on
which was promptly paid After the
war. from causes wei understood, the
interest payments ceased, or became If
regular. and have remained in a cOndi-
tiOn Of harrassing uncertainty. During
the war and against Nirginia's consent
the old Commonwealth was dismem-
bcrcd and a portion of her territory
erected into the new State of West
Virginia, which, in common justice,
should have assumed its portion of the
debt, hut did not. So the State of Vir-
pinia, by an act of her Legislature
passed March 80, 1871, undertook a
separate adjustment with her creditors
This act is known as "the funding bill
of 1871" 1t provided that the holders
Of the bCr1s of the State might fund
two thirds thereof in per cent. cOu-
pons or registered bonds of the State,
TO run for thirty-four years, payable,
Ike the coupons, to the bearer.
The coupons were payable semi-an-
nually, and receivable, at and after ma
turity, "for all taxes, debts, dues, and
demands due the State y; and this was
so expressed on their face. But it must
be remembered that in issuing said
bonds and coupons the Legislature,
neither in terms nor by any Just infer
cnce, made dny contract that the bonds
and coupons should not be subject to
taxation as other property taxed by the
State.
TAXATION OF THE COUPONS.
Under said funding act of 1871
number of creditors surrendered their
old bonds and took new bonds with
coupons attached. 1t was held by this
court in AnfOm rs. Wright, % Graft,
s33. that thereby a contract was formed
which was irrepealable, without the
consent of both parties, and made 1t
obligatory on the State to receive the
coupons for their full amount from the
bearer for any taxes. debts, dues, and
demands due to the State, it being con-
sidered that such receivability constl-
tutcd their chief value. But this court
did not there hold, nor has it, nor has
the Supreme Court of the United States,
anywhere. or at any time, held, that
thereby was created any contract, cx-
pressed or implied, that the State should
not tax the bonds or the coupons
as she taxed other property. In 1876
the Legislature passed an act I'M
uosing tax on tie JOHdS, and requiring
that tax TO be deducted from The cOu-
pans when rendered by parties other
than the holders of the bonds in pay
mcnt of their taxes or other dues to the
State. And this act was held 10y the
Supreme Court Of the United States, Ill
the case of Hartman US. GreCnhoi0,
100 L. s., 672, to be unconstitutional.
But. we repeat, that court did not de-
eide, directly or indirectly, that the
State had surrendered its right to tax
either the bonds or the coupons.
Nevertheless, for the defendant In
error it is contended that that court IN
that case decided that the State could
not tax the coupons that they were a
non-taxable article and that it had re-
peatcdly decided that the tax on the
business Of selling an article is tax on
the article itself-citing Welon as.
state Of Missouri, 1st Otto, 275 ;
Wc6bor rs. Virginia, 18th Otto, 800;
and from these and like decisions as
suming that taxing the business of sell
ing the coupons is tax on the cou-
pons themselves, therefore the State
cannot tax the business of selling them.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.
II the premise was correct, the con-
clusion would also be correct. The
premise, however, is not correct. That
court did not decide that the State could
not tax the coupons. A briefexamination
of Hart1lan as. GreenhOp will demon
strate the accuracy of our position
That case arose under the said act of
1876. The decision amounted to this
and nothing more